Updated: Jun 4
As we suggested in the second part of this series, the government of the UK has deliberately and systematically used fear against its own people, for around 15 months, primarily to secure compliance with Covid-19 health regulations. Most of the population are blissfully unaware of this policy, based on recommendations from unelected advisory groups such as SPI-B. As such, they are also blissfully unaware of the effect of those policies on their mental health and, crucially, on their ability to properly evaluate and critically assess the raft of policy measures which have been implemented by the government. These measures have been sold as ‘necessary’ by the government, promoted by an unquestioning mainstream media, and hence their ‘necessity’ has been tacitly accepted by much of the population, thus far.
When we suggested in the first part of this series that the past 15 months or so has been the biggest heist of freedoms and liberties that the country has ever seen, we include the freedom to think critically and objectively about the entire response by the government to the global health situation. We suggest this because, when a campaign of fear is waged by a government – with effectively unlimited resources and promoted by an unquestioning media – one effect of that fear must inevitably be to reduce or eradicate the freedom to think….without fear. Once you have put large swathes of a population into this psychological state, questioning the day to day actions and decisions of the government is effectively eroded.
As we said in the first part, the seeds of this fear began in the early part of 2020, with images from Wuhan, China, of people essentially dropping down dead in the street. Whilst these images may have seemed far away, matters were brought much closer to home a few weeks later, when images started to be broadcast of Italian hospitals struggling to cope with an outbreak of Covid-19. Not only was the virus being presented as deadly enough to kill you in the street, but now we had introduced the issue of whether hospitals would be able to cope with the numbers of infected people. And so, the seeds of fear were now well and truly sown. Who could possibly say how the virus would play out if it reached UK shores? This was a novel virus and nobody had any way of knowing just how deadly it might be or how it might spread through the population. Except that….we did.
On the 20th January 2020, a cruise ship called the Diamond Princess departed from Yokohama, Japan, for a round trip tour of South East Asia. On board were 2,666 passengers and over a thousand crew members. One of the passengers, a Japanese man, was infected with the novel virus. Over a week later, on 1 February 2020, the ship was quarantined. Nobody was allowed to leave or join the ship.
Although it has been rarely discussed since 23rd March 2020, the Diamond Princess had become a petri dish for the novel coronavirus. It was an exemplar. For over 3 weeks, people of varying ages and states of health were trapped within the confines of a ship which, given the fact that passengers and crew had been mixing freely for over 10 days, gave the perfect opportunity for a virus to spread among them, effectively as freely as it wanted. It was not until the 19th February 2020 that the first of the passengers who had tested negative were permitted to disembark from the ship.
In the 30 days during which the virus was given the opportunity to move through the ship at will, there were 712 confirmed cases of Covid-19 among the passengers and crew. In total, 14 people died of Covid-19; in other words, 0.37% of the passengers and crew onboard. That should, taken rationally, have been informative of the kind of level of threat that Covid-19 might pose if it began to circulate within society. And, interestingly, the figure of 0.37% almost exactly reflects how the virus has played out in practice in society, with the vast majority of those dying being very old and/or very vulnerable people.
However, the rational, calm response to what the Diamond Princess quite clearly demonstrated was replaced by theoretical mathematical models predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths if drastic measures were not taken. These mathematical projections were fed to the public, via the mainstream media, generating understandable – and, almost certainly, unnecessary – fear.
The projection of vast numbers of potential deaths – possibly millions – is one way of generating the kind of fear that might understandably ‘increase the perceived level of personal threat’ recommended in the SPI-B document we referred to in the second part. The second means of generating threat – or fear - which has been relied on consistently by the government and its medical advisors has been the number of ‘cases’ of Covid-19. This has been particularly used in periods where the number of actual deaths from the virus have been relatively very low. In fact, ‘cases’ have been the primary driver of the restrictive policies implemented by the UK government over the past 15 months.
It matters not whether you have a single symptom identified as associated with Covid-19. The government has urged people to ‘get tested’ in order to ‘stop the spread’. It has offered incentives to do so. The primary test which is used to identify ‘cases’ is a test known as the PCR test – the Polymerase Chain Reaction test. Testing ‘positive’ can lead to you, and others you have been in contact with, being told to ‘self-isolate’ with threats of fines and punishment if you fail to do so.
The PCR test was invented by a US biochemist, Kary Mullis. In fact, in 1993, Mullis shared the Nobel Prize for Chemistry with Michael Smith for the invention. Essentially, the test tests for the presence of genetic material by a process of ‘cycling’; essentially, amplifying a sample as many times as you wish in order to try and find evidence for the presence of the genetic material you are looking for. So far, so good.
However, Mullis – who died in August 2019 – had been very specific about the use of the PCR test. He had said, on many occasions, that the test should not be used as a tool to diagnose a disease . This is primarily because if you ‘cycle up’ enough, you will, in his words, ‘find almost anything you are looking for’. This could be fragments of an old coronavirus, ‘live’ or ‘dead’, and give no indication whatsoever about whether the individual is infectious or not. The test could be used to support a medical diagnosis (for example, if someone is displaying symptoms of a disease), but not to make the diagnosis itself. For all of these reasons, the PCR test has a very high ‘false positive’ rate – possibly upwards of 90%.
Now, if any of this is true – and we submit it is – then the primary driver of lockdown policy and the raft of restrictive measures that have been imposed on individuals and society generally for 15 months is flawed. People have been locked in their homes, for months, they have been denied access to health care, vulnerable people have been pushed out of hospital into vulnerable care homes leading to tens of thousands of deaths, people’s businesses and livelihoods have been destroyed, children and students have been denied an education, hundreds of billions of pounds of public money have been poured into the pockets of private companies unnecessarily, and freedom and liberty have been removed – all without sufficient and justifiable reason. And why have the public allowed this and not pushed back against it more vigorously? The answer is the fear generated by the government. Our submission, quite boldly, is that if any of this is true, it amounts to a crime against humanity.
But, of course, it does not end there.
© Cambridge Legal English Academy 2021